Ford's V-6 EcoBoost is under attack from all sides: Not only is the new Ram 1500 trying to show how strong and efficient its new Pentastar V-6 can be without twin turbos, but also GM is announcing an all-new, powerful V-6 with twin turbos that looks ready to out-power Ford's best-selling F-150 engine option. Click herefor the full press release.

General Motors has slated the new engine to go into the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS sedan where it will offer 420 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque (click here for the press release). We'll assume this engine could also fit nicely into a 2014 Silverado or Sierra (and probably several other GM products) as well, and give GM a chance to go head-to-head with the V-6 EcoBoost.

Ram is just out with EPA fuel economy numbers for its Hemi/TorqueFlite 8 combination, and the results have it playing in the same field as the EcoBoost - at least in the 4x4 configuration. According to fueleconomy.gov, mileage for the 2013 F-150 4x4 and 2013 Ram 1500 with the new eight-speed transmission mated to the MDS-equipped 5.7-liter V-8 Hemi are both rated at 15/21 mpg city/highway with a combined 17 mpg rating. But, of course, the real numbers we've all been waiting for are the two-wheel-drive numbers; those were the numbers Ram Trucks' engineers were touting as being better than the V-6 EcoBoost numbers during the press introduction of the 2013 Ram 1500s last year.

Well, a funny thing happened on the way back from the mileage calculations … .

We don't have all the pieces in place yet, and we still have a few unanswered phone calls into the EPA, but it looks like the feds are dragging their feet. We're not sure if they've decided to be cautious about their ratings or if they thought the eight-speed Ram 1500 V-8's fuel economy numbers were suspicious, but in either case, they've told Ram that they have not signed off on the exact city, highway or combined fuel economy numbers for the two-wheel-drive V-8 TorqueFlite 8 pickup. But maybe this isn't such a surprise.

Several sources have suggested that because of the widely publicized problems regarding EPA mileage rating procedures, and the wide fluctuations in results with select models from Hyundai/Kia and Ford hybrids, maybe it's not surprising the EPA is being so careful here. Combined with the fact that the Hemi has a complicated and sometimes touchy multiple displacement system, it makes perfect sense that not every driver (EPA or consumer) will be able to hit the top-tier mileage numbers.

We admit we've had some good days (when we've been incredibly patient, squeezing the throttle just right) and bad days (when we've been at altitude or cargo heavy) with the cylinder deactivation system in the Ram and just about every other full-size pickup with a similar system. Nevertheless, the publicity about these mileage disparities may result in a thorough revamping of the EPA's mathematical tests and its willingness to allow the automakers, in some cases, to conduct and calculate their own mpg numbers. No doubt we'll hear more on the subject soon.

As to how the new Cadillac motor stacks up against the F-150 EcoBoost and Ram 1500 in power, torque and fuel economy, here are two charts for some direct comparisons.

The only problem with the GM turbo engine is that they will keep it as a Cadillac engine for a couple years before offering it to the other lines. Ford did it from the other direction, offering it to the masses first. It sounds like a great engine though, and will keep pushing Ram and Ford to stay ahead of GM.

Posted by: Ford850 | Mar 20, 2013 7:57:12 AM

Supposidly the 4x2 Ram came back with a number that Ram was not happy with and so they did some minor tunes to the computer to alter shift points and a couple other items and sent it back for restesting with the EPA.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 20, 2013 8:24:25 AM

It looks like the data for the Ram 4x4 Hemi was entered wrong. Should be 15 city / 21 hwy / 17 comb.

Posted by: Aaron | Mar 20, 2013 8:27:33 AM

If GM plans on putting it in their pickups, I hope they do something (change the tuning) to where it'll take regular instead of premium gas.

Posted by: Lance | Mar 20, 2013 8:29:17 AM

The only turbo anything I want under my hood would be a diesel.Tons of torque at low rpm's.It don't get no better then that.Horsepower doesn't mean a thing to me concerning trucks.

Posted by: ToxicSludge | Mar 20, 2013 8:29:42 AM

Who cares about premium versus regular?
This engine is in a very sporty, meaning non-truck, tune.
The turbochargers + camshafts mean, revs are this engine's friend.
Only 90% of maximum torque [steady state] from 2500-5500.
Plus, this 8 speed automatic is Aisin's, not GM's.
Very close ratio 6.7:1.

So if GM did put this into trucks, subtract 50hp & 50ft-lbs.

Posted by: George_C | Mar 20, 2013 8:47:37 AM

None of these engines really matter, on ce the VM comes out, that will be the new standard.

Posted by: Emilio Palacios | Mar 20, 2013 8:51:01 AM

im thinking 17/25 in a CTS is NOT very good yes thats some good power if you keep your foot out of it but thats not looking that interesting to me.

Its funny how these Aisin transmissions continue to show up. first in the dodge diesel now in a caddy. everyone say thanks Toyota for a good transmission to use LOL.

Posted by: hemi lol | Mar 20, 2013 8:58:06 AM

GM's new TT V6 is a higher revving engine than Fords. That's how it builds higher horsepower numbers. It only makes 2.4% more Torque than the Ford, but it takes a full 1000 rpm more to reach it. It's clearly tuned for a car application instead of a Truck application. Take away the premium fuel and I doubt it can even match the ecoboost in Torque.

Posted by: Toycrusher | Mar 20, 2013 9:13:00 AM

Also, to be fair, the Pentastar should be measured against the 3.7L Ford, not the ecoboost, since the capabilities are the close. The Pentastar barely edges out Ford's basic engine with only a 6-speed trans.

Posted by: Toycrusher | Mar 20, 2013 9:15:03 AM

If Ford added DI and cylinder deactivation to the 5.0 it would be a clase leading engine only they won't do it because they don't want it to outshine the EB.

Posted by: Roger | Mar 20, 2013 9:19:58 AM

I'd rather have the new SBC if I was buying a Silverado. You can't beat a Chevrolet Smallblock. Especially one with direct injection.

@Roger, I agree. Ford could have gone further with the 5.0. They chose not to. And being that's the case, we have the EB in our new Platinum F-150. It's a great engine so far but it would be nice to say I had that V8 under the hood. I think the EB is Ford's baby now. It does have impressive power.

Posted by: FordTrucks1 | Mar 20, 2013 9:37:05 AM

@850ford, I think Ford put the EB into Lincolns SUVs and upscale Tauruses first, a couple of years before the halfton truck.

Posted by: Papa Jim | Mar 20, 2013 9:41:38 AM

The cts numbers don't show me much to be excited about, especially using premium gas which is 30 cents more per gallon. It doesn't appear to be much more efficient to me. The Taurus weighs 500 pounds more and gets the same mpg without an 8 speed, although it does have less power. I'm generally a Ford fan but I don't think turbos on a gas engine is the way to go. I just don't see any significant advantage and I wouldn't buy them. I think they are seriously over-hyped. Of the people I've talked to that drive a ford it seems the 5.0 and the ecoboost get the same mpg and the 5.0 costs less and will likely be more reliable. Just find a way to give us an affordable diesel. I sure hope chevy and ford have a small diesel waiting to take on the ram.

Posted by: beebe | Mar 20, 2013 9:55:17 AM

You know, I don't like turbocharged engines. I had a Buick Grand National growing that fast as greased lighting and a piece of crap! So I question reliability in those type engines.

Thing about this for a second. Not all trucks are used for the same thing. Some haul bulky loads but that weigh very little, some tow heavy trailers or little john boats. Some haul heavy loads and some haul nothing but groceries or kids. Instead of gimmick motors that can perform "like a V8" but give V6 mileage, why not offer a naturally aspirated V6 with a variety of rear end ratios and some powerful V8's with ta variety of rear end ratios and let the customer build a truck to suit his or her specific needs.
Really, Is an EcoBoost going to last as long as a 5.0 Ford? I doubt it. Is it really "green" and saving the environment or fuel? Let's use our heads here and stop just "drinking the kool aid" the manufacturers and the government are forcing on us. We are all truck guys on this site, no matter which brand we prefer and we all understand gearing and torque. If I could buy a V6 with an 8 speed transmission and 3:73 gears it will pull a utility trailer and get good mileage. By contrast if I can buy a V8 with 8 speed and a 3:08 or even a 2:93 rear gear it will do the same! One size does not fit all and the technology to build trucks for mileage or power has always existed so I'm not for these "Eco" motors whether Ford or GM or anybody.

Posted by: Old GM Guy | Mar 20, 2013 10:59:14 AM

If the new Chevy 4.3 comes in around 320hp and 300+ Torque it will tak a chunk out of the EB sales. It would also render the Pentastar and Fords 3.7 obsolete as truck engines.

Posted by: Jack | Mar 20, 2013 11:00:35 AM

I doubt GM does the Ecoboost competitor right away. Maybe for the update/refresh in 3 years. that gives them time to get the kinks out of the motor and the upcoming 8-speed (the in house version not Aisin)

Both this 3.6TT and Ford's Ecoboost are tuned well below what is possible. I am sure Ford wanted to test the waters before phasing out the 6.2 Given the large take rate I think with the new 2015 F150 we'll see the Ecoboost move up in terms of power to supplant the 6.2 This motor is cabable fo 450 hp and 450 lbs of torque with headroom left, although I doubt it will go up that far in a single generation. It leaves room for the DI on the 5.0 which should improve power a bit and mpg's.

Ram is going the opposite route and going with diesel. Both directions are expensive but the diesel will cost more but may carry better resale values. Call the net lifecycle costs even. Too bad the Ram is outclassed in terms of capabilities to GM, Ford and Toyota. (towing numbers are fine but payload is way too low)

Posted by: howam00 | Mar 20, 2013 11:06:36 AM

The Ford makes more per inch@ a lower rpm. Now if it had a closer ratio transmission with more gears. Plus Ford either gives you one of the biggest cabs, or the smallish supercab with wrong doors, no thanks. Still skeptical about these turbo gassers lasting very long.

@Toycrusher: I agree, the 3.6 Ram should be directly compared to the 3.7 Ford.

@Hemi lol: Had to find a way to mention Toyota, right? Lol, too bad Toyota can't get good mileage. 25 MPG in a Tundra, or even 23 is a dream! I am sure you will write some dude gets 23 (at 55 mph on a flat stretch maybe?)

@Tyler: The 25 mpg is the 4x2 Ram v-6 number.

Lets see, 21 mpg highway from a 4x4 hemi with over 407 foot pounds of torque, at 3950 rpm, vs. what 338 or 345 ft pounds of torque at a higher rpm with a smaller engine. That 5.3 will be quick to downshift, and it's mileage will drop easier then the Rams will when you actually put a load to it.

Then when you figure out that GM used the same mileage ratings on the 4x4 and 4x2 with 5.3, you get the idea GM is just BS'n.

@George: who cares if it takes premium fuel? The people that would be paying the 25 or 30 cents more a gallon. Ford also recommends premium for heavy tow.

As for myself, if I want 89 octane (I don't need it all the time, just if I plan to tow heavy) I buy at Caseys General Store and 89 is either the base fuel, or they have 87 at some places, but it's no cheaper then 89. The 91 octane will still cost a person atleast a quarter more at that station.

Posted by: TRX4 Tom | Mar 20, 2013 11:28:17 AM

Engine life is a result of design and quality control. It has nothing to do with number of cylinders, complexity, or whether the engine has a turbocharger. The only reason a turbo motor wouldn't last as long as a normally aspirated engine is if the testing was inadequate. Saab was making turbo four cylinder engines in 1980 that would give a quarter of a million mile service life. If Ford can't do the same by now they should be ashamed.

I'd be a lot more worried about Ram's 8-speed transmission than Ford's turbo engine. Chrysler's track record on transmission troubles is abysmal.

Posted by: Montesa_VR | Mar 20, 2013 11:40:36 AM

I give pickuptrucks.com credit for trying to sell us on the CTS engine coming over to the Truck lines, it ain't gonna happen.

GM has spent Billions of dollars on the new small blocks and 4.3 and these engines will more than compete with everything ford and dodge has out there.

GM doesn't want overhead cam engines under the hood of their fullsized trucks, thats a fact, maybe a baby diesel but no twin turbo BS, leave that for the pattycake fords.

Posted by: Mr Obvious | Mar 20, 2013 11:58:46 AM

@Jack, I tend to agree. That's one thing Chevrolet has that Ford does not. Their engine following. Those old SBC 350 base 4.3's had a massive loyal fanbase. Even though the new 4.3 share's nothing in common, it's marketing 101. Just like the new Ford 5.0 has zero in common with the old 302's. The thing here is, I'm not so sure there's as much love out there for Ford V8's as there is for Chevrolet's. You look at GM in general. Very few care about the V8 engine's from Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Cadillac and the rest of those companies. Chevrolet on the other hand won people over in droves. I think this is why Chevrolet will play the V8 card. I also think this is why Ford is playing the EB card. They're both playing to what they feel is their strength. The problem with Chevrolet of the last many years hasn't been their engines but the truck itself. I say that not just from my experience but from many of comments posted on the net. I've found it to be the same scenario in real life. People love Chevy engines but they hate the trucks.

These gains in power and fuel economy are indeed impressive if you don't mind higher-revving engines with fewer cylinders. But it's no replacement for the slow-turning, stump-pulling torque of a V8 that makes a real truck a real truck.

I started way back when with normally aspirated six cylinder trucks that had the manual "three on the tree", but I'm never going back to sixes even if they have twin-turbos or are supercharged. Those squirrel treadmills simply have more things to go wrong with them, as the past has already shown us.

CAFE mandates may force all that downsizing and miniaturization of engines in the half-ton class but that will only cause 'real truck' buyers to step up to the big V8s of the 3/4-ton and 1-ton class pickup trucks.

There's no replacement for displacement. Everything else is just make-believe and wannabees. If you buy a truck with a six or 4-banger in it, you don't really need a truck because you can do the same using an econobox with a trailer behind it. Better yet, a Volt or Prius with a trailer behind it.

There's a movement afoot here by the US government through the pickup truck manufacturers to sell the potential buyers on accepting smaller engines in their pickup trucks. Are people really that gullible?

Rumor has it that the NEW Tundra will have as its biggest engine the venerable 4.6 Lexus V8 when it makes its debut. As the owner of a magnificent 5.7 Tundra V8, why would I want to step down to a 4.6?

If Toyota decides to go that route, they will have lost me and I'll buy something with the biggest V8 from someone else.

Posted by: Highdesertcat | Mar 20, 2013 12:26:50 PM

Who doesn't love GM gas engines? They are easy to modify for power. Tune with torque management delete, cam, and full exhaust.

Off topic, but I saw an article where the 2.0 turbo in the Cadillac ATS gained 100+ hp and torque with just an aftermarket tune. I can only imagine what this 3.6 will do, since GM detunes EVERYTHING.

Posted by: John | Mar 20, 2013 12:29:07 PM

owltialogical

Posted by: TRX4 Tom | Mar 20, 2013 12:31:34 PM

@Montesa: Obviously if the block isn't stiff enough it won't last as long at higher power levils. Diesels tend to make a much heavier, stronger block. These new aluminum block v-6s are rather a lightweight casting.

Saab? Real great cars, that's why one of those blew up in front of one of my coworkers, and I wasn't right behind it becuase my friend pulled out of the parking lot right before me. Going downhill.

Do Saabs pull 10,000 or more pounds in a heavy vehicle, and have 10 to 1 comression with a turbo? I know direct injection helps alot, but really?

I'm sure alot of people will shut down the engines with the turbos hot after working them hard, as if they just trucked 10,000 pounds up a steep hill, and pulled off at some exit and didn't let it cool the turbos, like they should. That's owner abuse though.

I haven't had transmission issues with my Dodges, neither has my step ma with 90K on her 98 Ram with a 46RE trans (basically an overdrive 727) I realize 90K isn't much, but it has spent most it's life in a very hilly envirement towing either a gooseneck horse trailer with living quarters, a gooseneck travel trailer about 30 feet long, a utility trailer with either hay, one of my cars, or a tractor. Pretty much, unless my dad needed to move something, or pull a trailer, it stayed/stays home and the van, or now the Prius my stepma has, gets driven.

Now they did have a problem with the trans on the Dodge mini van, I think it was a 2003? Yeah, four Chrysler minivan in a row, one trans issue was the only problem, at 70K something miles.

Alot of the Dodge trans issues were dumbasses not using tow haul to lock out overdrive when putzing through town with a trailer on, and it goes into overdrive, then out of it, jerking in and out of overdrive. Same issues GM and Ford had. Toyota mighta had the same, but back in the 90s, nothing heavy was ever pulled behind a Toyota, so we don't know. That issue is worse if somebody is pulling with a 3.21 gear ratio.

If Ram gets a v-6 turbo gasser, I have no doubt they will do it better then GM and Ford. They have done alot more turbo vehicles then those two combined. It's the block I question. A Ram block, a Ford block, a GM block. Is it still enough? Lots of cylinder pressure.

Oh, Ford still can't figure out what to do about condensation in the intercooler. People with Ecoboosts love it when they go to pass somebody and the engine limps.

BTW, it's a ZF transmission, designed by ZF.

Posted by: TRX4 Tom | Mar 20, 2013 12:34:11 PM

@MaXx: sounds like you are upset Toyota can't make a V-6 truck, be it a Tundra or Tacoma, get good mileage?

Posted by: TRX4 Tom | Mar 20, 2013 12:36:33 PM

@Highdesertcat You nailed it. Big trucks need V8 power. The bigger the better. I wish GM and Ford had never stopped making their 454 and 460s. Use variable displacement and variable valve timing technology as a CAFE tool if you have to.

Posted by: Papa Jim | Mar 20, 2013 12:42:56 PM

@Highdesertcat: yeah, a Prius with a trailer can tow 5 to 6 thousand pounds, whatever. Some people don't need the V-8 power, but they need the bed space. Did you ever think of that? What if somebody just needs a 6 or 8 foot bed?

I myself need v-8 torque, cause I tow in the hills, or a turbo something. Turbo doesn't mean it has to be high rpm.

Gotta love the typical Tundra owner stance on mileage. Just act like you don't care what you spend on gas, like you all have such deep pockets. Wouldn't a truck that can do the same work on less gas get your attention? Or do you have Toyota blinders on?

Oh, the Ecoboost doesn't turn more more rpm then a Tundra when towing. But like I said, when the engines last, I will be more interested. I would take a diesel VM v6 and make more torque then your Tundra and much better mileage, at an even lower rpm.

Toyota folks love living in denial.

You sure sound like Debinder....

Posted by: TRX4 Tom | Mar 20, 2013 12:49:01 PM

Let’s all be honest, these silly V6 trucks are only in the half-tons because the majority of people that buy half-ton trucks never load them up (except those trips to home depot). So people care about MPG's, these silly V6 tt's will never make it to the heavy duty platform. The N/A V8 engines are more reliable when hauling HEAVY loads. A great example is GM still hanging on to the 6.0 in the 2500hd instead of replacing it with the half-ton 6.2. And the 6.2 in the Super Duty is detuned to make it a better TRUCK engine, same with the 5.7 in the heavy duty Rams.

If the ecoboost was so great and reliable, why would Ford use the 6.2 N/A gas in the Super Dutys?

You can’t have both in a full size truck, no matter what the media tells you. You either will get good MPG’s (V6 engine with 3.11 gears, and the towing capacity of a Tacoma) or you will get a heavy hauler that gets crappy MPG’s. I have seen for a fact, start working the ecoboost with a heavy load and the MPG’s plummet.

Posted by: John | Mar 20, 2013 12:51:45 PM

I see things differently and I have been buying new trucks since 74.Diesels are the answer,imho.4 & 6 cylinder crd's will give everyone all the pulling power and fuel economy they could possibly use in any 1/2 ton truck.Like it or not,this is the way it will go in our near future,and I'll be glad to see it.Bio diesel works so much better the E-anything,more power,cleaner burn.

Posted by: ToxicSludge | Mar 20, 2013 1:08:58 PM

In all honesty, if you don't think the turbo 6's are adequate engines in a truck, it's obvious you've never driven an Ecoboost. First time I drove one it amazed me how much low end torque it had. If someone had told me I was driving a new version of the 6.8L V10 I probably would have believed them. It's totally out of character for a 6 cyl. It's also totally out of character for most turbo engines I'm used to as well, being they typically have exponential torque curves that wants you to rev the engine vs. the ecoboost's surprisingly flat curve.

For me, the only thing the 5.0L and 6.2L has going for it over the Ecoboost is the sound. Otherwise I'd take the Ecoboost hands down.

Posted by: Paul810 | Mar 20, 2013 1:13:37 PM

TRX4 Tom | Mar 20, 2013 12:49:01 PM,

my first-ever new truck was a 1988 Silverado with the 350, an automatic and all the toys.

My second new truck was a 2006 F150 with the 5.4. So, please, spare me the sarcasm! I've owned real trucks. I know what I like.

I've owned many trucks over the decades, all but three were used trucks. The best ones, the most capable ones, the ones that I have fond memories of, all had the big honking engines in them, like the 454 with the THM 400 NewProcess 4X4 system, or the F250 with the MONSTER V10 in it.

I don't care about gas mileage. I believe that most Americans don't care about gas mileage and fuel economy. That's why the F150 has been the best-selling vehicle in America for so long, in spite of rising gas prices.

If someone has to worry about gas prices, they oughtn't buy a truck. This is just something the EPA and the DOT got together on to mandate new CAFE standards forcing downsizing. Next we'll have electric truck rolling disasters.

This has nothing to do with Tundra. I happen to own a 2011 now but if Tundra decides to go small V8, they can kiss my rosy-red where the sun don't shine because I'll buy something with a real motor in it, regardless of brand.

Posted by: Highdesertcat | Mar 20, 2013 1:19:13 PM

Speaking of Debinder. Has anyone run across any of Mr Dundett's comments anywhere? I lost track of him.

@ John i agree with you, Ford only offers the 6.2 in the Raptor, no eco boost they gave som BS about electric power sterring being on all the other motors and the 6.2 retains hydrolic power stearing i think the 6.2 will hold up in the long run. If you pay attention to Fords marketing the 3.7 is for people who need a trcuk b/c the bed size etc. the 3.5 GTDi is for the people who need a family hauler/comuter vehicle and tow or do other things that require a pick up on the weekend. in the past they would have had to but a 3/4 ton or a large displacement half ton to tow their toys and theys suffer bad mpgs on most of the time when they are unloaded. the 5.0 is for people who tow and haul light loads frequently , the 6.2 is the engine for people who regualry max tow, but you see few out side of raptors. I own a raptor for its off road capabilities which i regularly use, my 5.4 is more than adiquate and i normally get the same MPGs as my freind does in his taco i could go with a smaller motor, I'm not that big of a fan of the 6.2 so when i decide to replace my truck i dont know what ill do,

Posted by: carilloskis | Mar 20, 2013 1:27:03 PM

TRX4,
I tend to agree with you. Hard working trucks pulling heavy loads will suffer from low mpg's...for now.

Fear not, the future of automotive technology is bright. Cars and trucks built today are light-years ahead of vehicles built in the 1990's. 20 years from know we will be saying the same thing and I guarantee you that the US will be importing FAR LESS oil from the sand-thugs of the middle east.

Posted by: nlp | Mar 20, 2013 1:27:25 PM

1/2 Toners are real trucks, if you want a realy truck you need at least a 3/4 ton with solid front axle, and a diesel engine not a V8 out of a sports car thown in a truck.

Posted by: Mitch | Mar 20, 2013 1:40:04 PM

@highdesertcat
Why would I not want to worry about mileage among other things? I abolutely don't understand this argument some people have: "If you want mileage, should have bought a Prius" etc. How is that relevant to someones need for a truck? If I can save on fuel costs while the truck is able to do the same job, why wouldn't I? It works for bussinesses making more money or for personal use, keeping more money in my pocket for other things.

Posted by: someone | Mar 20, 2013 1:50:15 PM

Let's all not forget the key question: How many miles do you drive each month?

In my old job I drove about 20k per year. Now I drive less than 10k.

So, my need for a fuel efficient truck was cut in half (re mpg) but my needs for power and torque are still identical.

If I had a new job and needed to commute 30k year my needs for MPG would begin to overtake the need for power and torque.

Give me the big V8. I'll worry about the price at the pump.

Posted by: Papa Jim | Mar 20, 2013 1:54:48 PM

If you spend 10% more for premium versus regular, but you get 12.5% better mileage, with greater response & smoothness, what is the reason to object?
Is it some psychological identification with the 'common man'...

Posted by: George_C | Mar 20, 2013 1:57:32 PM

@highdesertcat
I think many people do worry about milage, a fleet buyer has to look at the operating costs of his fleet and will probably over look a tundra and get an f150 with a 5.0 or a chevy with the 5.3 , or both trucks with their v6 for 2wd trucks, the Utah hwy patrol uses 5.0 F150s as part of their fleet and dodge chargers also the AF options their f150s with the 3.7. bc when we buy vehicles we loo at what they are being used for and get the best economy to fulfil our mission. a 2wd truck around base doesnt need a v8.
I dont care about the biggest motor gas millage is my prioirity over acceleration all other things being equal, i choose the 5.4 over the 6.2 for this very reason save 3k up front on the cost of the motor and an estimated 3 grand in fuel over 5 years according to the epas website for a truck that can cruse through the desert at 100mph or crawl through the forrest i dont need a 6.2l motor. im not compensating and dont feel that need to race other men whos trucks say hemi or iforce ill pass them at the pump :)

Posted by: carilloskis | Mar 20, 2013 2:09:58 PM

HighDesertCAT, Fuel mileage is deffinatly relavant in any vehicle you buy apart from maybe a supercar. I want the most fuel efficiant vehicle for what I need it to do. I need a truck and you bet 2mpg makes a big differance. That's anywhere from a 10 to 20 percent saving over a year on a pickup truck. That more money in my pocket and more money I can put towards other things like my retirement savings.

Posted by: Ron | Mar 20, 2013 2:14:36 PM

I agree. Fuel economy definitely matters to most buyers. Especially since we're already taking a hit just by driving a truck, which naturally gets pretty terrible fuel economy.

Not to mention, when you only have a ~25 gallon tank (which seems to be the norm nowadays), your range sucks unless you get good fuel economy. You drive for a friggin hour with a trailer and you already have to start keeping an eye out for a place to refill. Never had that worry when the norm was a ~40 gallon tank.

Posted by: Paul810 | Mar 20, 2013 3:05:21 PM

I have to agree that MPG's do matter. Actually they matter a lot. Lets do some quick seat-of-the -pants style math here.

Based on rough 2012 sales figures for ONLY the US market there were roughly 1.5 million total new trucks sold. If on average we can get 2 extra mpg's across the board that is roughly 93 gallons of fuel saved per truck per year (I assumend an overall average of 15k miles a year and going form 17 mpg to 19 mpg). Although for a single truck that is $325 a year in gas savings ($3.50 a gallon assumed) but over 1.5 million trucks that is $488 million.

That is a lot of spare change that can go towards other discretionary spending to benefit the economy.

On the flip side it is also 139.5 million fewer gallons of fuel that is burned or has to be bought from non-domestic sources.

All of this is just from a single year. Now imagine those same savings over the 20 year lifespan of a truck (plus each additional increase in mpg's over each subsequent year) 2.8 billion gallons saved or nearly $10 billion dollars.

These aren't insignificant gains.

Speaking of which I just saw a working study being done by Cummins, Peterbuilt and others that got a 55% increase in mpgs on over the road tractors. they got mpg's up from roughly 5.5 mpg to 11 mpg. That alone could significantly alter frieght movment in this country and help the economy.

Posted by: howam00 | Mar 20, 2013 3:18:29 PM

I agree with everyone else. Fuel economy is important but the reality is that there is no real economy option yet.

By real I mean an honest 25mpg with plenty of useable power ie. the upcoming 3.0 Ram diesel. I will check this truck out when it arrives.

I'm all for big V8's like any other guy but my idea of economy isn't trying to squeak out 20mpg empty but I accept and live with it for now.

Like diesel or not it's the way we'll achieve useable power and economy in these heavy vehicles.

Posted by: Magnum | Mar 20, 2013 3:28:45 PM

Ford1: I may be wrong here, but I believe I read somewhere, that in the new 5.0 V-8 Ford engine, that DI is not realy work able because it has 4 valves per/cyl and not enough room for DI in the combustion chamber!

Posted by: sandman4X4 | Mar 20, 2013 3:33:34 PM

Am I the only one that doesn't care about fuel mileage in a full size pickup truck? I new what I was buying, a big, heavy truck with V8 engine and 4 wheel drive. Fuel economy was the last thing on my mind. If it ever was.

Posted by: Gregory J. | Mar 20, 2013 3:34:36 PM

Hey all you Ford and GM nubs RAM V6 is better than all your V8's combined. Decided to finaly show you guys my Truck! #1